YES! Because that's what the FREEWAY is for. You don't get in the "10 Items or Less" line at H.E.B. with a basket full of groceries. Why? Because that's not what it's for. You don't go to the drive through at Whataburger for a sit-down meal. Why? Because that's not what it's for. You don't get on the freeway and then drive slow. Why? Because that's not what it's for.
Those lights must be working though, or else they would be taken off a long time ago already. You looked up the dictionary for "freeway". Why don't you look up "limit" too? 65 is really the maximum you can go, not the speed when you feel like it. There are multiple lanes on the freeways. A slow driver cannot cause a trainwreck. You've driven behind slow drivers before, right? Do you continue going at your speed and hit them or do you switch lane? And this man going 58 in 65 zone was in no way causing a danger to other drivers.
So when you are old, you will in fact not drive on the freeway? Then I guess you cannot go to Galveston or anywhere outside of Houston. The speed limit is 70 on interstate highways. It sucks for you then.
According to several scientific studies that have been released over the years, the safest thing to do would be to go at the same speed as the flow of traffic. It doesn't seem right, but the science supposedly backs it up. Interestingly, the North Texas Tollway Authority (D/FW) is raising the (artificially low) speed limits on several of their roads in order to make the limits more in line with the average traffic speed on those roads. They claim to be doing it in the interest of safety (they're taking out all the tollbooths, too, in favor of electronic payments, which should also make the roads safer).
So you don't take the interstate. There are other roads, if you want to go 55. Incidentally, the NHTSA agrees that driving faster IS NOT a major cause of accidents (see report at: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811059.PDF ), with vehicles "traveling too fast for conditions" accounting for only five percent of the critical pre-crash events. So those driving the speed limit aren't driving any more "unsafe" than someone driving 8-10 MPH under the limit. They aren't the unsafe ones: the person impeding the flow of traffic is.
If you can't competently drive the speed limit, you shouldn't be driving. We are not asking you to speed, just go the speed limit in the right lanes.
That's only 7 miles below and if the driver was driving in the right lane then I don't see what the big deal is. I'd rather a driver know his limits and drive at 58 then be forced to drive at a higher speed that he may not be able to handle. Also last time I checked I don't think there are roads in cities that will allow you to go just under 60 without getting a ticket or be a reckless driver in narrower lanes. Also at that speed he's only going to get to his likely destination 5 minutes later than driving 65. Is 5 minutes really that big of a deal? If any drivers behind him were having a difficult time getting past him then that probably means the freeway was crowded and it wasn't just that driver that was interrupting the flow of traffic. There had to have been other factors than the driver going under the speed limit.
I keep thinking 40 or 45, as once told to me by a defensive driving instructor, but I can't find anything anywhere with numbers. I did find this though:
When I was driving back from DFW Wednesday, at one point I was in the left lane going 95 mph and had a guy riding my bumper for not going fast enough. I went from Wilmer to Conroe in exactly 2 hours.
Regardless of the "<x> speed causes accidents" or "purpose of the highway" debate, it's clear that legally that person should not have gotten a ticket.
It's not to slow people down. Ramp meters are meant to reduce congestion and keep the traffic flowing on the highway. That's why it's done only on the most congested sections of freeway at peak travel times. http://www.calccit.org/itsdecision/serv_and_tech/Ramp_metering/ramprep_print.htm#r_whatis
